Contemplating: Upgrading Mac Pro's or selling complete 12-core refurbished MacPro's

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

I'm about to start an upgrade of my current 8-core to 12-core 3,06 Ghz or 3,33 Ghz. If you also have an 8-core MacPro or even an 12-core, and wish to upgrade it, don't hesitate to contact me.

If you don't have an 8-core (or 12-core) MacPro, but wish to get a cheaper than new, refurbished, 12-core 3,06 Ghz or 3,33 Ghz MacPro. I'd consider selling one from 4 199, 2 000 less than a new one.

I'd also be able to install it with as much RAM, SSD disks or HardDrives as you'd like, or the fanciest modern graphic cards supported by OSX, as my nearest business neighbour is on of Europes largest importers of pc-components.

If interested drop me an e-mail...

puntervold (a) gmail (dot) com


Best regards,
Jon M.

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

If I had a MacPro 8 cores, I'm not sure I would upgrade. I would take a look a the cheaper iMac and boost up every specs. Or switch to PC. Or wait for the new ones.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

I was considering upgrading my 12 Core to 3.4ghz. I've decided to either wait for a new tower or go with the HP RED edition. Either route should allow me to ditch my expansion chassis.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

If I had a MacPro 8 cores, I'm not sure I would upgrade. I would take a look a the cheaper iMac and boost up every specs. Or switch to PC. Or wait for the new ones.

Why would you do that? A 12 core Xeon at 3,06 Ghz or more, will be an extremely capable machine. An iMac can not be compared, as it's not expandable, nor as fast... Running a lot of different boxes via Thunderbolt is also extremely inconvenient.

On performance, in real world scenarios, my 8-core 2.4 Ghz is performing at about the same level as some render nodes I've running with the latest i7 6 core CPU's at 3.2 Ghz.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

I was considering upgrading my 12 Core to 3.4ghz. I've decided to either wait for a new tower or go with the HP RED edition. Either route should allow me to ditch my expansion chassis.

A 16 core Xeon is a damn powerful machine. But I'm extremely finished with Windows, and unfortunately neither Adobe or Avid has Linux versions of their products, and DaVinici for Linux costs more than an Aston Martin.

However, if you buy a HP, do you have a Cubix box for sale?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As long as you're talking about upgrading a Mac Pro 5,1 model, you're fine. If it's a 4,1 or earlier 8-core, you're wasting your time and in that respect, with the exception of a software that pegs all cores regularly, the iMac will be faster than a Mac Pro 4,1 (2009 model).

Personally, I wouldn't spend the money. The current 5,1 model Mac Pro is one Xeon generation behind current and the next generation is due to be released within 4 to 5 months. You can't put current CPUs in it, only old ones. IMO, better to save the cash and buy a new one when released next year. The upgrade from 8-core to 12-core isn't going to buy you much unless you do lots of 3D rendering or use very scalable multiprocessor software. Even apps like Premiere that does make use of multiple cores shows significantly diminished returns beyond 8 to 10 threads.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

As long as you're talking about upgrading a Mac Pro 5,1 model, you're fine.

Yes, I'm not touching the earlier models, I'm just trying to keep the current MacPro's up to date at a reasonable cost...

The current 5,1 model Mac Pro is one Xeon generation behind current and the next generation is due to be released within 4 to 5 months. You can't put current CPUs in it, only old ones. IMO, better to save the cash and buy a new one when released next year. The upgrade from 8-core to 12-core isn't going to buy you much unless you do lots of 3D rendering or use very scalable multiprocessor software. Even apps like Premiere that does make use of multiple cores shows significantly diminished returns beyond 8 to 10 threads.

With all due respect, I completely disagree... First, the 8-core CPU's in the MacPro are clocked at 2.4 Ghz, upgrading to 12-core at 3,33 Ghz will be a vast improvement for post-production and high-end image processing work. Even though the latest generation Xeon's are a bit faster per clock cycle, the difference is almost unnoticeable in real world scenarios. Maybe due to lack of optimisation in the software?

Secondly, if the improvement in performance in the current Xeon and the next Xeon, that maybe will show up in 4 to 5 months, will be like the difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, there will be no real performance boost. And we don't know if Apple will release a new model at that time.

Neither the less, I have work to do in the next 4-6 months, and would rather do it on a fast OSX workstation, then a new Windows based system (that will double the cost/performance compared to a refurbished MacPro).

 

[Brian Pascale]

I was going to put more memory and a new graphics card in my 8 core Mac Pro but alas, it is too old and can't be upgraded to Mountain Loin. I just wanted one more year until the new macs came out. I don't want to jump to PC because I have not been blown away by premiere and want to give Final Cut Pro X a fair shake. Final Cut 7 is getting a little long in the teeth and I am ready to leave that behind, but it would be nice to move to something that behaves consistently. My understanding is that Premiere works better on a windows system. I am going to try to see if Final Cut X can get me through the next few months, but I don't think I can get my Kona 3 board to work with it without upgrading to Mountain Lion. No Kona, no broadcast monitor. Any suggestions?

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

I was going to put more memory and a new graphics card in my 8 core Mac Pro but alas, it is too old and can't be upgraded to Mountain Loin.

I could probably make you a MacPro 5.1 Westmere with:
12 cores at 3.06 or 3.33 GHz
64 GB ram
512 GB SSD system disk
GTX 680

...for about 6 000 USD if you are interested. It will run Avid, FCP X and Adobe Premiere extremely well. And it will of course run Mountain Lion. And it probably has about double the computing power of the latest iMac or retina MacBook.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yes, I'm not touching the earlier models, I'm just trying to keep the current MacPro's up to date at a reasonable cost...With all due respect, I completely disagree... First, the 8-core CPU's in the MacPro are clocked at 2.4 Ghz, upgrading to 12-core at 3,33 Ghz will be a vast improvement for post-production and high-end image processing work. Even though the latest generation Xeon's are a bit faster per clock cycle, the difference is almost unnoticeable in real world scenarios. Maybe due to lack of optimisation in the software?

Yes, that will be a significant upgrade. I guess I wasn't paying attention and missed that you were upgrading from 2.4GHz. Depending on which 2.4GHz chips are in your system, you may still be operating at a 1066MHz FSB and memory frequency. If that is the case, then the upgrade will also give you a 25% increase in memory throughput. So, yes, in that regard the upgrade is definitely worth it. If you were moving from 8-core 3.1GHz to 12-core 3.33GHz, the boost would be negligible in contrast to the price.

Secondly, if the improvement in performance in the current Xeon and the next Xeon, that maybe will show up in 4 to 5 months, will be like the difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, there will be no real performance boost. And we don't know if Apple will release a new model at that time.

The next iteration of Xeons are indeed the equivalent of Ivy Bridge core design. However, the next iteration brings the die shrink to 22nm process and a boost of over 20% on clock speeds across the entire product line. Current generation (Sandy Bridge, 32nm, E5 series Xeons) are significantly faster than previous generation Westmere core Xeons. I'm not sure what benchmarks you're comparing, but the memory throughput itself is night and day different now that the E5-26xx series offers quad-channel at 1600 and 1866 MHz. Vs. the top end triple-channel arrangement at 1333Mhz on Westmere. Not to mention we gain PCI v3, more PCIe lanes which scale by CPU rather than needing to cascade additional chipsets.

The down side of the current generation E5 Romley platform is the physical size and power consumption of the 8-core CPUs on a 32nm process. Not only that, but the price is significantly higher than the previous generation and many have determined it to be a more cost-effective solution to stick with the Westmere platform since one can practically assemble two fully capable 12-core workstations for the price of one 16-core system. Case in point, I have over $10K in my Z820 and nearly $9K invested in my equivalent workstation built on the SuperMicro X9DAi motherboard and similar components.

Neither the less, I have work to do in the next 4-6 months, and would rather do it on a fast OSX workstation, then a new Windows based system (that will double the cost/performance compared to a refurbished MacPro).

I can't argue with that. And yes, Windows fucking blows. ...To think what Microsoft would be capable of if they actually had a competent CEO and a design team on the level of what Apple or Google have.

I was going to put more memory and a new graphics card in my 8 core Mac Pro but alas, it is too old and can't be upgraded to Mountain Loin. I just wanted one more year until the new macs came out. I don't want to jump to PC because I have not been blown away by premiere and want to give Final Cut Pro X a fair shake. Final Cut 7 is getting a little long in the teeth and I am ready to leave that behind, but it would be nice to move to something that behaves consistently. My understanding is that Premiere works better on a windows system. I am going to try to see if Final Cut X can get me through the next few months, but I don't think I can get my Kona 3 board to work with it without upgrading to Mountain Lion. No Kona, no broadcast monitor. Any suggestions?

What are your specs? If you can't upgrade to Mountain Lion, it's probably a Mac Pro 2,1... That really puts you in a bind though. Not much you can do other than to add more RAM and maybe some faster storage (if applicable).

Premiere runs just fine on the Mac, CS6 runs just as well on Mac as it does on PC these days. The advantage to running it on Windows is you have a broader choice of GPUs and other hardware. The disadvantage to running on Windows is that you're running on Windows...

FCPX is underrated, but people are finally warming up to it. It will run on Lion just fine, but you don't get all the benefits (like support for your AJA card) unless you're on Mountain Lion. You can always download the 30-day trial of FCPX to see how it works for you. Same with Premiere. You don't need the latest and greatest hardware to use either of them, but if you're on a 5 year old Mac Pro with 667 or 800 MHz memory, it won't be the greatest experience when working with Scarlet and Epic footage. 12bit RED One footage handles easier on the older systems if you're editing natively. Just make sure you have fast storage to work from and adequate memory.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Yes, that will be a significant upgrade. I guess I wasn't paying attention and missed that you were upgrading from 2.4GHz. Depending on which 2.4GHz chips are in your system, you may still be operating at a 1066MHz FSB and memory frequency. If that is the case, then the upgrade will also give you a 25% increase in memory throughput. So, yes, in that regard the upgrade is definitely worth it.

The down side of the current generation E5 Romley platform is the physical size and power consumption of the 8-core CPUs on a 32nm process. Not only that, but the price is significantly higher than the previous generation and many have determined it to be a more cost-effective solution to stick with the Westmere platform since one can practically assemble two fully capable 12-core workstations for the price of one 16-core system.

FCPX is underrated, but people are finally warming up to it.

Thank you for the heads up! I could not agree more on these points. It's also why I'm upgrading and consider a fully spec'ed MacPro as a top notch post-production workstation. It also runs all 4 major editing applications; Final Cut Pro 7, Final Cut X, Avid and Premiere Pro. I've also heard (but I'm not sure if this is true?), that DaVinci Resolve runs smoother on OSX.

Current generation (Sandy Bridge, 32nm, E5 series Xeons) are significantly faster than previous generation Westmere core Xeons. I'm not sure what benchmarks you're comparing, but the memory throughput itself is night and day different now that the E5-26xx series offers quad-channel at 1600 and 1866 MHz.

I don't doubt that they are, but the only application I currently run on both architectures are Maxwell Render nodes, and I don't see a vast difference in performance between an 8-core MacPro at 2,4 GHz and 6-core Sandy Bridge at 3,2 Ghz (although the 6 cores are slightly faster).

 

[Brian Pascale]

Thanks for the reply Jeff. Indeed I am running an Mac Pro 2.1 with 667 MHZ memory. I have Premier 5.5 and may upgrade to 6, but will be trying Final Cut Pro X first. I have a Rocket so Red footage playback without a problem. I am just trying to get one more year and then hopefully get a system that will be good for a few years. Don't want to drop six or seven grand on new Pro Mac that is not really new. If I don't like Final Cut Pro X, then maybe I will just move back to windows after all these years.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

2500 USD got me 96GB of Ram, 2 new 6-core Xeons at 3.33 GHz and a 4GB GTX 680. Some time in January all the parts should arrive, and we'll see if this were a good move.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The GTX680 isn't going to do you any good in the Mac Pro. It draws too much power and has almost zero driver support at this time. You need a re-flashed BIOS/EFI on the card to take it out of low-power mode. Not to mention, it's designed to run on a PCIe v3 interface, something the Mac Pro doesn't have, so even if you pulled off a miracle and got it to come out of low power mode and you had proper driver support, it would still be crippled.

That said, it seems like you got a great deal overall! I'd sell the GTX680 and get a re-flashed GTX570 from MacVidCards. Or drop the 680 in a PC if you have one.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Okay, we need to discuss this more - later, as I have a lot to learn. Luckily, the GTX 680 was bought for one of our PC's originally. However, it runs on 2x6pins, so I guessed it would run perfect with the Mac Pro, compared to the risk of GTX580? I currently run a GTX 580 without any issues, but I guess there is a slight to medium risk involved...?

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Found the best solution. An EFI hacked GTX580 3GB, with displayport and power limitation set at 225w...